Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12462076 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/462,076 07/28/2009
23494 7590 09/21/2016
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Allan T. Mitchell
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-66531 5072
EXAMINER
RADKE,JAYW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2827
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLAN T. MITCHELL and HARVEY J. STIEGLER
Appeal2014-007147
Application 12/462,076
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and N. WHITNEY
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed July 28, 2009,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Br.) filed November 27, 2013, and the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) delivered April 3, 2014.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007147
Application 12/462,076
unpatentable over Han3 in view of Chi. 4 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Upon consideration of the totality of the record including the evidence
and arguments of the Examiner in favor of obviousness and Appellants'
contentions to the contrary, we find that the preponderance of evidence on
this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants' claims on appeal are unpatentable over the applied prior art. We
sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law
and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Non-Final
Office Action and the Answer. The Examiner's fact findings are set forth in
the Non-Final Office Action and the Answer which we adopt hereby as our
own without repetition. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Han and Chi teach away from the use of
comparable voltages (Br. 10-11 ), and that Chi does not teach producing an
inversion region (id. at 12). In particular, Appellants argue that Han teaches
that the tunneling capacitor 2065 and the coupling capacitor 202 are located
over the same well 234, and teaches application of a large voltage on
terminal T and ground on terminal B. Id. at 11. Appellants also argue that
Chi teaches "Vd=Vs=Vcc", that the "n-base surface is not inverted," and the
use of "edge FN tunneling" which is opposite to Appellants' Specification.
3 US 6,788,574 Bl, issued September 7, 2004.
4 Chi, Min-hwa, et al., A New Single-poly Flash Memory Cell with Low-
voltage and Low-power Operations for Embedded Applications, IEEE
Conference Publications, Device Research Conference Digest, 1997, pp.
126-127.
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2014-007147
Application 12/462,076
Id. Appellants repeat these same or similar arguments for each of the
rejected claims. Id. at 10-34.
However, Appellants' arguments are without persuasive merit. As
the Examiner finds (Ans. 3), Han's tunneling and coupling capacitors do not
share the same well, but instead use of the same reference numeral to refer to
both wells is merely a matter of convenience as clearly depicted in Figure 2.
Further, while the Examiner acknowledges Han's teaching of the application
of a large voltage on one capacitor while grounding the other (id. 3--4), the
Examiner relies on Chi for suggesting the use of comparable voltages and
equates the applied voltage differences between Han and Chi (id. at 13).
Indeed, the Examiner explains that "[i]t is the biasing of Chi and not the
structure that is being incorporated [into Han's process]." Id. at 14.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (id. at 14--15), Chi teaches the
accumulation of mobile electrons on the surface of the p+ junction, "which
is another way of saying that there is an inversion layer of electrons on the
surface of the p+ region consistent with both Appellant[s'] invention and
Han's device." Finally, as the Examiner finds (id. at 15), the claims do not
distinguish between FN tunneling and edge FN tunneling, and Chi teaches
the FN tunneling phenomena just as in Han. Appellants do not address or
otherwise rebut these findings regarding the respective teachings of Han and
Chi. As such, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's findings or conclusions of law with regard to the§ 103 rejection
based on the combination of Han and Chi.
3
Appeal2014-007147
Application 12/462,076
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Chi is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4